Pasty....while i agree these contracts are too much for these guys, and the owners are directly to blame for this, my support for the owners is simply that they own the teams, therefore can pretty much do what they want. Just like this last lockout, if it comes down to it again, the players need the owners more than the owners need the players. There are far more players out there than there are rich enough guys who can own a team. That's the bottom line! I'm not arguing for a second that these deals are too high. Maybe it's a learning curve and if these owners can get their gm's to fill out a competetive team with these deals, all the power to them. It's a new CBA, new rules, new contracts, etc. It will be interesting to see both how this works out and how much the real big FA's like Getzlaf and Perry command in this new market.

Either way, i agree, these two have been overpaid, however, it's a little early to start claiming that the owners are already ruining it and putting us back to where we were pre-lockout. Let's see what happens with the big names. And, you have to keep in mind as well that they may get big dollars, but much shorter terms. As much as O'Reilly's deal is way too high, it is for 2 years, and then a min of one more (at least that's the way i read it). I'm not entirely sure how it works, but i understand whoever owns his rights in 2 years, has to qualify him with a deal for 6.5 min. If that can be a 1 year deal, then 3 years from now, he's a FA. Still not ideal money, but 3 years won't cripple the team or the league salary structure.

Not on the side of the owners here as I believe the CBA will in now way fix the overpayment of players, but there are holes in your statement.

First off Getzlaf, Perry, Carter and Richards average salary is higher than O'Reilly's new contract and I believe they are of similar value to there respected teams, with O'Reilly not having yet peaked statistically yet. Carter and Richard's best seasons are a few years removed and the are settling in to a 60 point pace players and both have a history of being problem players.

Zajac is slightly higher paid on average than the players proposed, but has no history of being a problem player. His salary seems excessive based on the last 2 years stats, but he is of the same ilk as the other players outside of Getzlaf and Perry which have more offensive potential. When Getzlaf and Perry sign I am absolutely certain there contracts will be much higher than the group of players above.

I dont think the new CBA will have any lowering impact on the value of these type of players future contract signings. We may not see the impact of the CBA on young players like this, but I think the CBA will affect aging veterans to a greater degree.

Guest9830 ( )

Posted - 03/02/2013 : 10:03:51

quote:Originally posted by Alex116

Pasty....while i agree these contracts are too much for these guys, and the owners are directly to blame for this, my support for the owners is simply that they own the teams, therefore can pretty much do what they want. Just like this last lockout, if it comes down to it again, the players need the owners more than the owners need the players. There are far more players out there than there are rich enough guys who can own a team. That's the bottom line!

What was the owners excuse for the lockout? They are losing money and can't handle the cost burden of the players. Remember? So they sign a deal after pretending to negotiate (that first offering wasn't worth wiping yourself on it).

So now that the owners have held the fans and players hostage, you are condoning their actions because, hey they are rich and can do whatever they want to the game? F that. Lastly isn't that Calgary owner one of the guys who took a hard stance on paying players exorbitant salaries during the lock out? Hypocrite MF. I wish he loses all his wealth tomorrow.

As for Josh's post, remember that the Avs must qualify O'Reilly with a minimum offer of $6.5Mper on his next contract. That is higher that what Perry and Getz and Zajac is making, I don't really care about average salary.

I thought about this. Was concerned a player could ransom a team like you suggested. The only year in the contract which would have to match is the 1st year of any offer. They could average a salary lower than the $6.5 over a longer termed contract if his value was lower. Plus if the Av's decide he isn't worth the $6.5 million in any future negotiations, they don't have to offer a qualifying offer. They would retain his rights as a restricted free agent, wait again for another offer to come in at his actual value and match. The question is, is O'reilly's value going to increase to $6.5 million over the next 2 years or is his real worth the $5 million average that he is earning?

quote:Originally posted by Guest9830

quote:Originally posted by Alex116

Pasty....while i agree these contracts are too much for these guys, and the owners are directly to blame for this, my support for the owners is simply that they own the teams, therefore can pretty much do what they want. Just like this last lockout, if it comes down to it again, the players need the owners more than the owners need the players. There are far more players out there than there are rich enough guys who can own a team. That's the bottom line!

What was the owners excuse for the lockout? They are losing money and can't handle the cost burden of the players. Remember? So they sign a deal after pretending to negotiate (that first offering wasn't worth wiping yourself on it).

So now that the owners have held the fans and players hostage, you are condoning their actions because, hey they are rich and can do whatever they want to the game? F that. Lastly isn't that Calgary owner one of the guys who took a hard stance on paying players exorbitant salaries during the lock out? Hypocrite MF. I wish he loses all his wealth tomorrow.

As for Josh's post, remember that the Avs must qualify O'Reilly with a minimum offer of $6.5Mper on his next contract. That is higher that what Perry and Getz and Zajac is making, I don't really care about average salary.

What was the owners excuse for the lockout? They are losing money and can't handle the cost burden of the players. Remember? So they sign a deal after pretending to negotiate (that first offering wasn't worth wiping yourself on it).

So now that the owners have held the fans and players hostage, you are condoning their actions because, hey they are rich and can do whatever they want to the game? F that. Lastly isn't that Calgary owner one of the guys who took a hard stance on paying players exorbitant salaries during the lock out? Hypocrite MF. I wish he loses all his wealth tomorrow.

As for Josh's post, remember that the Avs must qualify O'Reilly with a minimum offer of $6.5Mper on his next contract. That is higher that what Perry and Getz and Zajac is making, I don't really care about average salary.

I don't think the owners were getting into trouble on 2 year 10M deals to up and coming players under the last CBA...

O'Reilly's contract is the perfect "put up or shut up" deal. He has 2 years to prove that he's worth his demands. If he puts up I don't think the Avs will have any problem qualifying him. If he doesn't, they'll walk away (if they still have him at that point), or take him to arbitration. The Av's can easily afford this deal for the next 2 years given their current cap situation, and all the pressure is now on O'Reilly. Whats the problem?

@Pasty7 - you are comparing apples to oranges. 2 year deal is not the same as a 8-12 year deal.

Guest9830....Nuxfan has hit on part of what i was going to say. I think i made it clear that the amount is too much, but the term doesn't lock the team in for a crazy number of years! Also, as far as them being rich (the owners) and doing what they want, YES. You may not like it, nor might i, but it's reality. It's their team, they can do what they want (within the rules). My whole point is the same as it was back during the lockout. If the owners need to, they can find other players who are willing to play. If the players decide to bail, they need to find another league and can enjoy their lives overseas so should they choose.

As far as O'reilly's actual deal, i'm not sure how the 6.5 qualifying offer works? I thought it was the avg of the new deal? As in, if things worked out in Colorado and they wanted to sign him for 5 more years, it'd have to be at 6.5 per (avg)? If it's just simply that he must be paid 6.5 in year one, they could offer him a deal for 4 years at 20mil that pays him 6.5 in year 1 and balances out in the 4 following? Again, not sure how it works but if it's scenario 1, it's just a 1 year deal they'd need to offer him. In the end, it'd be 3 years / 16.5 (total) which would avg out to 5.5. This number is still high for what i believe his worth, but two important things come into play. The aforementioned cap space and ability for Colorado to do this deal AND the fact the term wouldn't kill a team being that it's only 3 years. Again, i don't know all the rules of these deals so i could be off on this?

Lastyly, no one is really mentioning that Calgary is up against the cap and would have had to make a move or two to fit O'reilly in (from what i heard). I'm not a cap master / follower so i don't know how they look for the next two years.

yes but O Reilly is a RFA, Meaning his next contract has to be within a certain percentage of the one before meaning even if after 2 years O reilly becomes a complete bust they will still have to give him 5 plus million , and Zajac`s contract is the maximum 8 years,,

When you say "bigger money" . . . are you including the rate of inflation, as well as very recent comparables for comparison/contrast?

Prices go up every year for players. Just like ticket prices for the most part, and merchandise, etc etc. Tell us the general rate of inflation for player salaries between the years you are comparing, THEN tell me if there is an overpayment!

I have changed my mind on the O'Reilly offer. It was a bad offer by the Flames and one which the Av's should never have matched. i have added my reasons in the O'Reilly Topic, but the signing bonus of $2.5 million with the $1 million salary and the fact there is only 29 games remaining in this year change the dynamic of his actual value. I thought he would receive a prorated amount for this year were wrong. He is actually being payed $2.5 by signing bonus to play the remainder of the year and a $1 million prorated salary. His average if you worked it out for an 82 game schedule is closer to next years salary of $6.5 Million. That is way too much. This was a bad offer and a bad match by Colorado.

Guest9830 ( )

Posted - 03/02/2013 : 16:35:17

quote:Originally posted by slozo

When you say "bigger money" . . . are you including the rate of inflation, as well as very recent comparables for comparison/contrast?

Prices go up every year for players. Just like ticket prices for the most part, and merchandise, etc etc. Tell us the general rate of inflation for player salaries between the years you are comparing, THEN tell me if there is an overpayment!

For next year there is a guaranteed deflation and so a similar deflation of the players' salary. $70M cap to $64M cap.

Guest4377 ( )

Posted - 03/02/2013 : 17:59:38

For any players with big contracts, it may impact their teammates more than the owners.

If league revenues go down (due in part to the lockout), the cap will go down, which limits how much even the most generous (reckless?) owners can pay their other players. (And limits a team's ability to go after big name free agents.)

With O'Reilly's signing, Colorado has $27 million tied up with six players (O'Reilly, Stastny, Jones, Parenteau, Landeskog and Johnson), and based on what they're spending on players this season ($53 million), this leaves $26 million in their budget for their remaining 16 roster players.

Arguably, with the signing of O'Reilly, Colorado could make the decision to increase their payroll costs accordingly. Maybe O'Reilly helps draw in a few more fans, and gets the team in the playoffs. Not likely this season, but the Av's are only 3 points back from 8th place, so there's some hope.

But even if one makes sense of the O'Reilly signing, I wonder about teams who have a lot of money tied up (some of it long term), who are already at the cap. Minnesota has $37.5 million tied up with six players (Suter, Parise, Heatley, Bouchard, Gilbert and Backstrom, which leaves only $32.5 in cap space for 16 other players. If the cap goes down to $64 million next season, the Wild will either have to trade one of their star players, or find a way to fill 16 roster spots with around $26 million. Good luck!

No matter what, if the owners overpay for some players, it just means there's less money for other players on their team, especially if you're a team which spends near the cap!

yes but O Reilly is a RFA, Meaning his next contract has to be within a certain percentage of the one before meaning even if after 2 years O reilly becomes a complete bust they will still have to give him 5 plus million , and Zajac`s contract is the maximum 8 years,,

That is incorrect - it depends what COL does with him at the end of this deal, and what type of RFA he is.

If COL qualifies him, then they must qualify him at 6.5M. If they do not qualify him in time, he becomes a UFA and can sign anywhere for any amount of money. If COL goes this route, its probably a good bet that he'll be signing for less than 6.5M.

If he has arbitration rights at the end of this deal, he can go to arbitration, and the team can elect to walk away from the decision, thus making him a UFA - this happened to Clark MacArthur a few years ago, and the deal he signed with TOR was less than his arbitration award.

Lots of ways this can shake out. However, there is absolutely no rule that says O'Reilly must earn a minimum of 6.5M per year after this deal is done.

Guest4377 ( )

Posted - 03/02/2013 : 20:31:47

I missed Mikko Koivu in my list of Minnesota Wild's list of highly paid players. Koivu makes $6.75 million a year, and through until the end of the 2017-2018 season.

So the Wild have seven players earning nearly $40 million in total. What's left over for other players?

Sure the star players deserve more, but what kind of talent can you find with the rest of a team's budget or cap space?

I missed Mikko Koivu in my list of Minnesota Wild's list of highly paid players. Koivu makes $6.75 million a year, and through until the end of the 2017-2018 season.

So the Wild have seven players earning nearly $40 million in total. What's left over for other players?

Sure the star players deserve more, but what kind of talent can you find with the rest of a team's budget or cap space?

not much - but teams and players will have to make do. Many of the longer term contracts were signed under the old CBA with a 70M and climbing cap. Now they have a 64M cap that may decline further. What you'll probably see over the next few years is an evening of the playing field once again, as teams that can afford players will get them in bidding wars. As was pointed out in another thread, there are several teams that are going to have a difficult time in 13/14 and 14/15 seasons given their current payrolls and commitments.

If you're looking at top-7, there are many teams that have 30-40M tied up in their top 7 players next season. In a 64M cap world, that means a lot of players will take less to play around those 7 players, or they'll go to teams that can afford to pay them more. So for the next ~5 years, the rich-poor gap widens, and as these long term big money deals come off the books, we'll move towards more parity.

The point is, teams will find a way to build a team with what they have. It may not be the best team, but a team will be iced. Teams that signed a lot of big money long term deals are likely to suffer over the short term. Or players will understand the new NHL really fast and help them accommodate. Time will tell.

Guest4350 ( )

Posted - 03/08/2013 : 10:29:44

quote:Originally posted by Pasty7

can you really defend the owners now after Zajac and O Reilly get bigger money then the Carters Richard Geztlafs and Perry`s of the NHL, what a joke!

Getzlaf at 8yrs for $66M, that's $8.25M per year. The reason for the lock out is a complete joke. I'm sure the owners will complain about rising player cost in 8 or so years and won't look at the mirror to see the problem.

can you really defend the owners now after Zajac and O Reilly get bigger money then the Carters Richard Geztlafs and Perry`s of the NHL, what a joke!

Getzlaf at 8yrs for $66M, that's $8.25M per year. The reason for the lock out is a complete joke. I'm sure the owners will complain about rising player cost in 8 or so years and won't look at the mirror to see the problem.

I have to admit, i'm shocked by this. I thought moving forward that the max contracts would be lowered for sure, unless the term was much less than the max. I see no prob paying a guy 8-10 mil if you can get him inked to a 2 year deal! But this is crazy!

Guest9830 ( )

Posted - 03/08/2013 : 16:24:58

This is why owners being who they are will never be satisfied with any CBA. They keep on screwing themselves over and then take it out on the union via the CBA.

So where is Gary during all this? Where is Jacobs and his hardline stance? We already know where the Flames owner stands on all of this.

All this and supposedly the Ducks are not a "rich" team. What a crock!! Well Anaheim fans, expect a 50% bump in ticket prices and concessions. If they sign Perry to the same deal then expect a 100% increase in seat and concessions prices.

So pro-owner posters, how you gonna defend this idiocy? I hate to say but - told you so.

Guest4377 ( )

Posted - 03/08/2013 : 19:01:10

Anaheim fans should not expect a 50% increase in ticket prices (or concessions) due to Getzlaf's big contract. Or a 100% increase if they sign Perry.

Not going to happen. It doesn't work that way.

The Ducks have one of the lowest average ticket prices in the NHL ($40 or $45, depending on the source), and they're a bottom six team (this season and last season) in attendance WITH Getzlaf and Perry in their lineup.

Why would Ducks fans pay significantly more for tickets, etc. with the same two marquee players in their lineup next season as they have this season? If the market could support higher ticket prices (it can't), the Ducks would be charging more to see a game this season.

Guest4209 ( )

Posted - 03/18/2013 : 20:12:24

quote:Originally posted by Guest4377

Anaheim fans should not expect a 50% increase in ticket prices (or concessions) due to Getzlaf's big contract. Or a 100% increase if they sign Perry.

Not going to happen. It doesn't work that way.

The Ducks have one of the lowest average ticket prices in the NHL ($40 or $45, depending on the source), and they're a bottom six team (this season and last season) in attendance WITH Getzlaf and Perry in their lineup.

Why would Ducks fans pay significantly more for tickets, etc. with the same two marquee players in their lineup next season as they have this season? If the market could support higher ticket prices (it can't), the Ducks would be charging more to see a game this season.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Perry signs for $69M/8yrs. The Ducks need more cap space if they plan to field a half decent team in 2+years. One way to do that is by increasing revenue and to do that they will need to sell those tickets and concessions at a higher price (hope the rest of the league follows suit too). But next year they are screwed, over 25% of the cap to 2 players, ouch.

There goes the owners sticking it to themselves again. What was the reason for the lockout again I can't seem to remember with these wads of cash blocking my view?

So where are those pesky pro-owner posters with some sort of retort (intelligent or otherwise)? Bueller? Bueller?

Perry signs for $69M/8yrs. The Ducks need more cap space if they plan to field a half decent team in 2+years. One way to do that is by increasing revenue and to do that they will need to sell those tickets and concessions at a higher price (hope the rest of the league follows suit too). But next year they are screwed, over 25% of the cap to 2 players, ouch.

There goes the owners sticking it to themselves again. What was the reason for the lockout again I can't seem to remember with these wads of cash blocking my view?

So where are those pesky pro-owner posters with some sort of retort (intelligent or otherwise)? Bueller? Bueller?

Well first of all, teams cannot get more cap space by increasing revenue. Every team gets the same amount of cap space (64M next year) that they are allowed to fill with player salaries.

As to purpose of the lockout...

- Lowering team costs was a goal of the lockout, and they succeeded - 50/50 split in revenues and 10% reduction in cap starting next year.

- Changing contract makeup and rules was a goal, and they succeeded. Had the old CBA been in place, I have no doubt that both Getzlaf and Perry would have signed huge front loaded "lifetime" deals with low cap hits. You can argue whether they are worth it, but I'm pretty sure it pales in comparison to what they would have received under the old CBA.

At no time did the lockout attempt to stop owners from paying star players star money.

The real question for me (and you touched on it yourself) is whether or not ANA can build a team when its paying 25% of its available cap space to 2 players. I personally think they'll have a hard time doing so, and think other changes are coming in ANA this coming summer. But if they think they can, then power to them. Time will tell

Guest4209 ( )

Posted - 03/19/2013 : 06:38:06

quote:Originally posted by nuxfanWell first of all, teams cannot get more cap space by increasing revenue. Every team gets the same amount of cap space (64M next year) that they are allowed to fill with player salaries.

Really? I thought the cap is based on revenue projections. So increased revenue will lead to increased cap amount, with exception for next year where the cap is already set at $64M.

quote:Originally posted by nuxfanAs to purpose of the lockout...

- Lowering team costs was a goal of the lockout, and they succeeded - 50/50 split in revenues and 10% reduction in cap starting next year.

- Changing contract makeup and rules was a goal, and they succeeded. Had the old CBA been in place, I have no doubt that both Getzlaf and Perry would have signed huge front loaded "lifetime" deals with low cap hits. You can argue whether they are worth it, but I'm pretty sure it pales in comparison to what they would have received under the old CBA.

At no time did the lockout attempt to stop owners from paying star players star money.

The owners were complaining salaries were getting too high and the owners were losing money. Then they start to throw wads of cash at these 3 guys (ROR, Getz and Perry - which affects all other teams as it is used as a comparable). So Malkin should be getting $12M/yr on his next contract. Let's keep on throwing these wads of cash out boys, we won the CBA negotiations.

quote:Originally posted by Guest4209Really? I thought the cap is based on revenue projections. So increased revenue will lead to increased cap amount, with exception for next year where the cap is already set at $64M.

Ah, I see where you're going here, my bad. I was under the impression that you thought ANA could get more cap space for themselves just by getting more revenue, which of course they cannot. League-wide revenues do indeed help to set the league-wide cap.

quote:The owners were complaining salaries were getting too high and the owners were losing money. Then they start to throw wads of cash at these 3 guys (ROR, Getz and Perry - which affects all other teams as it is used as a comparable). So Malkin should be getting $12M/yr on his next contract. Let's keep on throwing these wads of cash out boys, we won the CBA negotiations.

I think there is a difference between costs of building a team, and the costs of signing an individual player. Costs were getting out of hand within the old CBA, players were getting 57% of league wide revenues, and the salary cap had gone from 48M to 70M in 6 short years, and every team was doing what they could to circumvent the cap with creative deals that were very front-heavy - the sorts of contracts that many teams in the NHL cannot afford.

Those things are all gone now. The NHL is down to 50-50 split (which means that Perry and Getzlaf are unlikely to see their entire contract amount anyway), the cap is down to 64M and likely to wallow around there for a few years. Crazy player contracts are gone - Getzlaf and Perry still get big bucks, but can you imagine what they might have gotten under the old CBA? Instead of some crazy cap circumventing deal, they each get 8 year deals with the same cap hit every year.

In regards to these particular contracts, I think they're both overpayments, and I think ANA will be constrained with that much cap space allocated to two players as the years go on. However, if you thought that somehow Perry and Getzlaf were going to be in a market where no team was willing to pay them more than 5M a year because of the cap, you were clearly wrong. Elite players will continue to make big bucks, and teams that make signings like this will be forced to find players that fit around them. Whether or not its a good model going forward remains to be seen.

But the reality is, they're paying less for their two star players than they might have, they know exactly what they can and cannot do going forward with regards to their team cap and cannot cripple themselves with ridiculous contracts, and they'll probably be able to spend to the cap in coming seasons because its lower and they now make more money as a team because of increased revenue sharing. So yeah, I think the owners got what they wanted, and I think the new deals being handed out are reflective of a change in sentiment.

after the owners got there 50/50 split didn`t they all of a sudden want a 5 year cap on contracts? yeah that demand extended the lockout almost a month, and then 3 of the 4 signifgant contracts signed after the deal are for the maximum 8 years the owners called "the hill we will die on", Obviously the Ducks felt they had to offer these big contracts because someone in the off season was going offer these guys deals just as big and then the Ducks could easily lose out big. So yes the Ducks felt they had too, a loss of Perry and Geztlaf would be to detremental to the franchise and fan base, and of course it would.

But controlling the players salary is the owners responsibility how can Geztlaf be blamed for setting his family up for life!

You can't be a contender if you've wasted 25% of your salary on 2 players.

Someone should let PIT know that they'll suck next year with Crosby and Malkin on the payroll...

Edited by - nuxfan on 03/19/2013 10:38:09

Guest9251 ( )

Posted - 03/19/2013 : 10:48:44

quote:Originally posted by Guest4209

quote:Originally posted by Guest9251

Basically if the Ducks didn't give them those contracts someone else would have, you have to do what you have to do to become contenders in this league.

You can't be a contender if you've wasted 25% of your salary on 2 players.

That is a very untrue comment. First of all, signing Perry and Getzlaf is not "wasting your money". And second, you do realize the Penguins are paying both Malkin and Crosby $8.7M a year right now and next year right?!

Guest9251 ( )

Posted - 03/19/2013 : 10:50:11

quote:Originally posted by nuxfan

quote:Originally posted by Guest4209

You can't be a contender if you've wasted 25% of your salary on 2 players.

Someone should let PIT know that they'll suck next year with Crosby and Malkin on the payroll...

Totally didn't see this before my last post, but glad I'm not the only one...

Pasty....Yes, the owners perhaps did want 5 year max terms. However, they didn't get that part of the deal in their favour. Now that the max is 8, are you implying that they shouldn't sign guys for the max? The owners did what they could to work out a deal that favoured themselves as best they could. However, now they will obviously ink guys to max deals, the max being the 8 that was finally agreed on.

I'd like to think that the owners could get together and simply agree amongst themselves that NO ONE will sign anyone to anything beyond a 5 year deal. Two problems with that. Someone will cave and find it necessary to go beyond to benefit their franchise and secondly, from what someone told me before about a similar topic re contracts, the owners could get in trouble for this.

I'm not entirely certain of this, but i asks back during the lockout what would happen if all the owners got together and privately made a deal amongst themselves to max out ANY salary at a certain amount per year (lets say for arguments sake 6M). IF they could stick to this, what could the players do, even if it were in the deal that 10M was the max? Someone said that there would be a problem with "collusion" or something to that regards that the PA could go after them about? I'm not sure who said it, nor if it's accurate, but that's what i got out of it.

I'd like to think that the owners could get together and simply agree amongst themselves that NO ONE will sign anyone to anything beyond a 5 year deal. Two problems with that. Someone will cave and find it necessary to go beyond to benefit their franchise and secondly, from what someone told me before about a similar topic re contracts, the owners could get in trouble for this.

I'm not entirely certain of this, but i asks back during the lockout what would happen if all the owners got together and privately made a deal amongst themselves to max out ANY salary at a certain amount per year (lets say for arguments sake 6M). IF they could stick to this, what could the players do, even if it were in the deal that 10M was the max? Someone said that there would be a problem with "collusion" or something to that regards that the PA could go after them about? I'm not sure who said it, nor if it's accurate, but that's what i got out of it.

Collusion to limit opportunities or set prices in an otherwise open and competitive market . I suspect a full restriction on collusion within the wording of the CBA. It is otherwise generally illegal in any free and open economic system.

quote:Originally posted by nuxfanSomeone should let PIT know that they'll suck next year with Crosby and Malkin on the payroll...

Crosby and Malkin vs Perry and Getzlaf. No contest, I'll take Sid and Geno all day and every day at $8M/yr.

The difference is Sid and Geno are the anchor to two lines and they make their linemates even better. Perry and Getzlaf are on the same line, so maybe I should say 25% of the cap on one line. Imagine if they sign Ryan to O'Reilley like numbers. Yikes 33%+ of the cap on a single line. Good luck with that.

I haven't checked the salary numbers for next year but isn't Pitts, Philly, NYR, Boston and now ANA in a little bit of a jam on the salary cap?

Guest4209 ( )

Posted - 03/19/2013 : 13:44:47

quote:Originally posted by Guest4209The difference is Sid and Geno are the anchor to two lines and they make their linemates even better. Perry and Getzlaf are on the same line, so maybe I should say 25% of the cap on one line. Imagine if they sign Ryan to O'Reilley like numbers. Yikes 33%+ of the cap on a single line. Good luck with that.

Sorry not imagine, with Bobby Ryan signed to $5.1M/yr for 3 more years, it will be ~33% of the salary cap on a single line. Ouch.

BTW, add Vancouver to the list of teams in cap trouble next year.

Guest2104 ( )

Posted - 03/19/2013 : 14:12:24

quote:Originally posted by Guest4209

quote:Originally posted by Guest4209The difference is Sid and Geno are the anchor to two lines and they make their linemates even better. Perry and Getzlaf are on the same line, so maybe I should say 25% of the cap on one line. Imagine if they sign Ryan to O'Reilley like numbers. Yikes 33%+ of the cap on a single line. Good luck with that.

Sorry not imagine, with Bobby Ryan signed to $5.1M/yr for 3 more years, it will be ~33% of the salary cap on a single line. Ouch.

BTW, add Vancouver to the list of teams in cap trouble next year.

Ryan isn't normally on Getzlaf and Perry's line anymore. And they have 11M in cap space next year

quote:Originally posted by nuxfanSomeone should let PIT know that they'll suck next year with Crosby and Malkin on the payroll...

Crosby and Malkin vs Perry and Getzlaf. No contest, I'll take Sid and Geno all day and every day at $8M/yr.

The difference is Sid and Geno are the anchor to two lines and they make their linemates even better. Perry and Getzlaf are on the same line, so maybe I should say 25% of the cap on one line. Imagine if they sign Ryan to O'Reilley like numbers. Yikes 33%+ of the cap on a single line. Good luck with that.

I haven't checked the salary numbers for next year but isn't Pitts, Philly, NYR, Boston and now ANA in a little bit of a jam on the salary cap?

So it is possible to be a contender while spending 25% of your cap on 2 players, or even 33% of your cap on 3 players (like PIT will with Crosby/Malkin/Neal). Thanks for clarifying.

You seem to be drawing a lot of conclusions without recognizing that teams will have latitude to adjust in the coming offseason and next season:

- trades - teams will trade players they cannot afford, to teams that can afford them- amnesty buyouts - every team has 2 that they can use, and most of the teams you mentioned will likely take advantage of them to get rid of contracts.- regular buyouts - they still count against the cap, but at a reduced rate over double the contract term. They will likely be used as well

Not to mention that team compositions will probably change as well. ANA may not play Getzlaf and Perry on the same line next year, in order to spread out their offensive firepower like PIT does. They may get other players to take less to play with them, similar to how PIT does. They have draft picks and other EL deals that they can take advantage of to fill holes.

I'm pretty sure there are some big brains in the ANA ownership group that have crunched the possible numbers more than you or I will. They seem to think that they can build a competative team around Getzlaf and Perry, with those two making as much as they do. Time will tell.

Nuxfan......thanks for that. I knew someone had brought it up before. I still find it hard to believe it can be enforced if it's just simply a gentleman's agreement. But i guess the minute the agreement sours, all hell would break loose?

I have no problem with the value that either of these players signed for in Anaheim. Based on there value to there team, I would say the point was made during contract negotiations that Getzlaf and Perry were as valuable to there team as Crosby and Malkin were. I think if Perry and Getzlaf hit the open market and played in the east for an offensive minded team like the Penguins they would have similar stats to what Crosby and Malkin produce. In the tighter defense West and in especially in Anaheim, Getzlaf and Perry don't shine as much in the individual stats rankings. These are 2 franchise veteran players in the prime of there career's, who have already won the cup and bring there hockey level higher during the post season. I would love to have either on my team. BTW if Crosby of Malkin were in negotiations today, they would draw an even higher pay, now, with a similar length to what these 2 players received this month.

Granted, the cap would have to go sky-high for anyone to approach that number. Which, according to James Mirtle’s projections, it very well could, hitting $90 million by 2020.

Combine that with contracts that can’t “back dive” to reduce cap hits, and whose truncated term compared to the ones under the previous CBA beg for high annual salaries, and we’re headed to $14 million annual cap hits – with players like Evgeni Malkin, Sidney Crosby, Patrick Kane, Jonathan Toews and especially Steven Stamkos pushing the numbers even higher in their next contracts.

Maybe we’ll look back at Perry and Getzlaf as the “Joe Sakic contracts” of our time, raising the bar for all elite players under the new CBA.

The thing I see happening now is people are comparing players like Perry and Getzlaf to other elite players and saying there value is lower than other superstars. I disagree with this point. I think Perry is of the ilk of Stamkos and Getlzlaf is of similar value to Malkin Toews and Kane. I am just wondering am I alone in thinking these guys are in that Elite class and if $8.25 to $8.75 million over 8 years locks up a franchise player today, that is a reduction in the value of a franchise player from the previous CBA.

The fact that there is now a reduced maximum for contract length has kept these contract from becoming beyond a players career, which to me is a major improvement. I wish the contract lengths were limited to 5-6 years like the owners wished, because it is way to hard to project a players value or health 8 years down the road, but a reduction from 10-14 year contracts is actually an improvement.

Other points of this article point to 15 year old contracts at greater than $10 million for players like Sakic, Federov and Lemieux. I just think this round has had the desired effect and if the owners had got the contract length rules they wanted the sky would look much clearer.

Granted, the cap would have to go sky-high for anyone to approach that number. Which, according to James Mirtle’s projections, it very well could, hitting $90 million by 2020.

Combine that with contracts that can’t “back dive” to reduce cap hits, and whose truncated term compared to the ones under the previous CBA beg for high annual salaries, and we’re headed to $14 million annual cap hits – with players like Evgeni Malkin, Sidney Crosby, Patrick Kane, Jonathan Toews and especially Steven Stamkos pushing the numbers even higher in their next contracts.

Maybe we’ll look back at Perry and Getzlaf as the “Joe Sakic contracts” of our time, raising the bar for all elite players under the new CBA.

The thing I see happening now is people are comparing players like Perry and Getzlaf to other elite players and saying there value is lower than other superstars. I disagree with this point. I think Perry is of the ilk of Stamkos and Getlzlaf is of similar value to Malkin Toews and Kane. I am just wondering am I alone in thinking these guys are in that Elite class and if $8.25 to $8.75 million over 8 years locks up a franchise player today, that is a reduction in the value of a franchise player from the previous CBA.

For me "elite" is more of a stratified bucket, rather than a simple label. There are several players that I would consider "elite", but that in group and compared to each other, they vary.

Crosby, Malkin, Stamkos are all at the top of elite (effectively, the "elite of the elite"). They will be the players that consistently set the high bar for personal achievement and therefore contract amounts going forward. In my world, no player should earn more than any of these 3 players, if their contract was signed in the same year.

After that, you get into a mishmash for the rest of the bucket - Getzlaf and Perry, but also the likes of Richards, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Sedin's, Toews, Kane, Thornton, OV, St Louis, etc. Its hard to compare any of these players straight up to others, and everyone will have their own list of who is better than who, but one thing is clear - none of them are in the same class as the top 3.

I don't think that Getzlaf and Perry are worth 8.3M per season each, especially given the new cap reality - but they are worth "elite money", certainly more than their current contracts were paying.

Here's part of an article from Nicholas Cotsonika of Yahoo Sports regarding Bob Murray's take on his signing of Getzlaf and Perry. It's a really good read and he makes some interesting points about his position in regards to signing these two under the new CBA..........

Ducks rolled CBA dice on rich new deals for Getzlaf, Perry

Bob Murray felt like a guinea pig. The NHL and the NHL Players’ Association had reached a new collective bargaining agreement, and in trying to re-sign Getzlaf and Perry, the Ducks’ general manager would be the first to apply it to superstar contracts

The Ducks were the first team to re-sign its star players under the terms of the new CBA. (Getty)“It was always on my mind what I was setting up for the future for everybody else,” Murray said. “We all care greatly about this game, and we don’t want to set a standard that’s going to hurt anything. Hopefully we haven’t here.”

Murray signed Getzlaf, his No. 1 center and captain, to an eight-year, $66 million extension. Then he signed Perry, the 2011 Hart Trophy winner as the league’s most valuable player, to an eight-year, $69 million extension.

That will make Getzlaf’s salary-cap hit $8.25 million, Perry’s $8.625. Those numbers seem steep. But contract terms are limited in the new CBA – seven years, or eight to re-sign – so you can’t spread the money over more years to lower the cap hit.

The theory is that the elite players will still get paid, pushing their cap hits higher, leaving less cap room for the rest. That’s why the NHLPA worried about a middle-class squeeze as it fought term limits in CBA negotiations. That’s why players such as Evgeni Malkin and Jonathan Toews likely will have even higher cap hits when they sign their new deals in the future.

The cap will decrease to $64.3 million next season, the same level it was at last season, and then it will be calculated based on the players receiving 50 percent of hockey-related revenue, down from 57.

“Revenues are going to be important to this,” Murray said. “If revenues don’t increase, it could make it very difficult in the coming years.”

But the Ducks didn’t just close their eyes and cross their fingers. Obviously they project that revenues will rise and the cap will rise again starting in 2014-15. If it rises, the percentage of the payroll going to Getzlaf and Perry will decrease.

“We studied that long and hard in what we did going forward,” Murray said.

The bottom line is, the market will evolve. It will look different than it did before. In Murray’s position, you have to predict the future as best you can and do what you think is best for your team.

Getzlaf and Perry could have earned even more on the open market and would have been difficult to replace. The Ducks won that Cup with them in 2007, compete in the same market with the 2012 champion Los Angeles Kings and are contending again this season. Murray said they wanted to send the right message to their fans, their players and “players who want to come to Anaheim in the future.”

“In Anaheim, I think it’s very important we have stars,” Murray said. “I think that’s critical to our organization. In Anaheim, I felt it was just very critical that we keep these two gentlemen going forward. For our situation as an organization right now, it had to happen.”